Posted!

Join the Conversation

Letter: Not on same page about fetus’ ‘rights’

NorthJersey
Published 2:41 p.m. ET July 19, 2018

In this Jan. 22 photo, marchers carry a banner during the March for Life 2016, in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, during the annual rally on the anniversary of 1973 'Roe v. Wade' U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.(Photo: Alex Brandon/ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Regarding “What about the rights of the fetus?” (Your Views, July 13):

In response to another letter, “Safe abortion is essential” (Your Views, July 9), the writer of the above letter states “… there is no doubt that when a woman is pregnant there is life.” She goes on to declare, “This debate about when a fetus is a person is ridiculous and moot; there is life…” and asserts that it is unacceptable to take this life. As if the point is incontrovertibly proven, the writer leads into denying a woman her right to choose a legal abortion with “Now that we are all on the same page …”.

But the point is not proven, the debate on fetal personhood is not “ridiculous and moot” and we are not all “on the same page.” Personhood is precisely the determining factor in having the right to life because our bodies, pregnant or not, consist of cells, tissues and organs that are alive but do not possess what is required to be a person, a human brain. Otherwise, if the writer’s assertion is to be accepted our tonsils, appendixes, even cancerous cells must not be removed because they have a right to life. The standard counter argument is that there is a difference here since microscopic human zygotes and blastocysts, embryos and early trimester fetuses (all now claimed by some to be “unborn babies”) have the potential to become a person.

However, “potential to become” is not the same as potential fulfilled. I am a natural born U.S. citizen over the age of 35 who has resided here for the last 14 years. I cannot reasonably assert a right to 24/7 protection by Secret Service bodyguards because I have the Constitutional potential to become President and, therefore, claim myself to be an “unelected President.”

The writer of the July 13 letter was incredibly dismissive of pro-choice fears should Roe v. Wade be overturned (“Spare me the coat hanger anecdotes. This doesn’t happen except in old movies.”) but others go much further with provocative name-calling. I hope that at some point the differing views on when human life begins (and ends) can be discussed reasonably and rationally. Such discussions can contribute to achieving consensus on the ethical issues emerging from current advancements in human biology and medicine. Those who now provide little but incendiary accusations of “murderer” and ill-considered comparisons to the Holocaust will succeed only in being left out of the conversation.

Unfortunately, having a proper and fruitful discussion is unlikely since the toxicity surrounding the subject is both encouraged and used as an emotionally charged tool by many politicians and, sadly, a few religious leaders to maintain their influence and power.